Thread: Iraq War

This thread means nothing. You are just repeating things we have been hearing for 4 years.

If you know so much more about this than I do, then what do you suggest America do? Just leave? Controlled withdrawal, what? All you are doing is complaining.

Wendy, I hope you will eventually realize that repeating what the left wing fanatic blog sites say is not a good policy for getting to the truth. Those people are not interested in logic or truth. They are interested in spewing hate and will do it at the expense of the apparence of the truth. I will post what I said to you in the other thread where you made the same points you just did.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The American death toll is less than 4,000. It was 55,000 in Vietnam, and we left too early. The American death toll in World War II was in the multiple hundreds of thousands. We will do what we have to do. And don't think for a second we can't take Iran and Pakistan (We don't have a beef with Pakistan any way.). Are you joking? We have the power to turn the entire Middle East into a sheet of glass within an hour. We don't want to do that (But Al Qaeda would do that to us without hesitating if they could.), but don't say we can't take little piss ant countries in the Middle East. We do need to possibly take down the government of Iran so they will stop supplying the insurgents. We are really constructively at war with Iran right now too. Our ultimate goal right now is to help Iraq grow as a democracy. That success will not be revealed during the transition phase. It will take a long time. But... The seed of democracy has been planted. A democratic government is in place, and the population has the right to vote and DOES SO in higher percentages that WE do. What does that tell you? It tells you that the will for freedom is very much alive in Iraq along with a democratic government. I hope you are hoping the best for that situation. Are you?

What does Iraq have to do with terrorism? You say nothing? Well, let me inform you of the truth. First of all, saying Iraq has something to do with terrorism is not to say that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. No, the Hussein regime was not involved in the 9/11 attacks as far as we know. But, the Hussein regime was an international terrorist government that supported Hamas and Hezballah and provided financial incentives to Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel, shot missiles at Israel and Kuwait without provocation, took over Kuwait without any justification, used WMD's in a terrorist attack on the Kurds, and used terror to control their own masses. They were also having meetings with Al Qaeda representatives and harboring Al Qaeda members. Plus, our 1991 ceasefire with them required that they had to follow certain provisions regarding terrorism and their WMD's, which they did in fact have. They violated that ceasefire for 12 years. After 9/11, the U.S. made policy changes. We formed the Bush Doctrine, which was a policy regarding all international terrorist groups, not just the terrorist group that inspired it. (Make sure you caught that very important point which the leftist fanatics always overlook.) Under it, the Taliban of Afghanistan was the first government we went after. Due to everything I said about the Hussein regime, they were second. In addition to that, democracy in the heart of the Middle East is a great weapon against terrorism in the long run. So is making Islamofascist terrorists come out of the Middle Eastern woodwork so we can kill them like flies. Also, five ally governments and the United Nations, in addition to our own intelligence, reported that the regime currently had stockpiles of WMD's before the war started. Consider that entire picture, and you will see what Iraq has to do with terrorism and the justification for the lifting of the ceasefire and overthrowing the Hussein regime.

You need to consider all of it at the same time. It's about a big picture, not just any one thing.

If you know so much more about this than I do, then what do you suggest America do? Just leave? Controlled withdrawal, what? All you are doing is complaining

Yes you should withdraw, and what else are the average people who didn't want to go to war go, shut up.

And don't think for a second we can't take Iran and Pakistan (We don't have a beef with Pakistan any way.). Are you joking?

Iran has nuclear weapons, so I unless you want MAD to happen your country would not do it. A large amount of people in your country want to pull out, how do you think democrats got massive support during the bi elections.

Wendy, I hope you will eventually realize that repeating what the left wing fanatic blog sites say is not a good policy for getting to the truth.

What now it the, wendy your a liberal wackhoo, seriously.

We do need to possibly take down the government of Iran so they will stop supplying the insurgents. We are really constructively at war with Iran right now too.

This is not a good option, firstly Iran has nuclear warhead, secondly no one wants another Iraq however much they say 9/11.

democratic government is in place, and the population has the right to vote and DOES SO in higher percentages that WE do. What does that tell you? It tells you that the will for freedom is very much alive in Iraq along with a democratic government.

Yeah, vote extremist parties, like Palistein hasmas was voted in. And look what happening to Palistein.

First of all, saying Iraq has something to do with terrorism is not to say that Iraq was responsible for 9/11

So let me get it, if a person gave a hundred pound or a gun to a robber and he then robbed then the person who gave the hundred pound to the robber should get beaten up.

But, the Hussein regime was an international terrorist government that supported Hamas and Hezballah and provided financial incentives to Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel, shot missiles at Israel and Kuwait without provocation, took over Kuwait without any justification, used WMD's in a terrorist attack on the Kurds, and used terror to control their own masses.

This has nothing to do with 9/11. So just admit that 9/11 link or a 9/11 link of a link is bullshit?
Also your saying stuff that happen like ten years ago, and lots of country support Hamas and Hezballah. Israli is not any better and their has been worse dictatorship, look at africa.

Continue later

Originally Posted by wendylove

Y
This is not a good option, firstly Iran has nuclear warhead, secondly no one wants another Iraq however much they say 9/11.

They don't have nuclear warhead, yet.

They don't have nuclear warhead, yet.

Yeah, but their nearly close to getting nuclear warheads.

Plus, our 1991 ceasefire with them required that they had to follow certain provisions regarding terrorism and their WMD's, which they did in fact have.

Seriously can you stop saying terrorism, their not a big player in terrorism. They didn't have WMD's where is your source that says they had WMD's.

Under it, the Taliban of Afghanistan was the first government we went after.

And look at afghanistan now, nice job.

which was a policy regarding all international terrorist groups, not just the terrorist group that inspired it.

Iraq posed no threat to anyone since about ten years.

Due to everything I said about the Hussein regime, they were second

Again, can you please get the source where is says that Hussein was funding terrorist organisation, as I think this is rubbish. Hussein killed all the terrorist orgainsation that tried to come to his country as they were a threat to his power.

In addition to that, democracy in the heart of the Middle East is a great weapon against terrorism in the long run. So is making Islamofascist terrorists come out of the Middle Eastern woodwork so we can kill them like flies.

Palistein anyone?

Also, five ally governments and the United Nations, in addition to our own intelligence, reported that the regime currently had stockpiles of WMD's before the war started.

Well, the weapon expectors found no evidence, and the intelligence on the WMD's where false. Seriously, I could go into more details about the intelligenc being flawed.

Great controversy emerged when no such weapons were found, leading to accusations that the United States, and in particular its President George W. Bush had deliberately inflated intelligence or lied about Iraq's weapons in order to justify an invasion of the country. While various leftover weapons components from the 1980s and 1990s have also been found, most weapons inspectors do not now believe that the WMD program proceeded after 2002,[1] though various theories continue to be put forward.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_an...uction#_note-0
See the weapon inspectors found nothing, their was no weapons in the first place, just lies.

Consider that entire picture, and you will see what Iraq has to do with terrorism and the justification for the lifting of the ceasefire and overthrowing the Hussein regime.

So Iraq is about Hazbollah and Hamas, however instead of attacking them and destroying them both we attak Iraq because they support both. Genius!

You need to consider all of it at the same time. It's about a big picture, not just any one thing.

So the big picture, well Iraq was really about Hazbollah, so instead of destoying them we destroyed Iraq. The threat of Hazbollah has increased as they are supported by syria and the united states can't get rid off them as they are fighting in Iraq and Afganstan. So lets look at Hamas then, wow. Good statergy of getting rid off Hamas, since now they are in control of half of Palinstein and supported by alot of people in palinstein as they did win the election. So the two terrioist groups have been hit so hard from the united states invading Iraq, it most be a difficult time for the both espically Hamas, as they own half a country next to israel were people fire rockets daily at them. Again I don't see how looking at the big picture helps.

Wendy, Saddam had WMD's, specifically chemical and maybe biological bombs. If he didn't, why would he constantly deny UN weapons inspectors from entering bunkers? Even if he didn't have WMD's, he sure as hell acted like he did.

For the last time, it wasn't just "George W. Bush" that "inflated or lied" about WMD. Intelligence from all over the world said so. So please, get educated on this stuff, for the sake of intelligent argument.

You clearly haven't done extensive research on this subject, only bias reports. May I suggest the History Channel?

Wendy, Saddam had WMD's, specifically chemical and maybe biological bombs. If he didn't, why would he constantly deny UN weapons inspectors from entering bunkers? Even if he didn't have WMD's, he sure as hell acted like he did.

I wouldn't call BBC news biased report. He didn't deny weapons inspectors anything, they just couldn't find any. Then the inspectors concluded their is no weapons. Where your source that says inspectors were not allowed to search bunkers. Again their was no WMD's found and Saddam had no reason to not let the inspectors search where they want to look, as they wanted sanctions to go away.

For the last time, it wasn't just "George W. Bush" that "inflated or lied" about WMD. Intelligence from all over the world said so. So please, get educated on this stuff, for the sake of intelligent argument.

Okay, what intelligence. As the inspectors said their were no weapons. So I don't know what intelligence your getting this from. We can go into more details as have quite abit of sources thet say intelligence were faulty, espically since the inspectors said their was no weapons.

I really think you have forgotten 2003. Do you remember the news reports titled "Saddam Refuses Entry To Inspectors". Please, Google search "Saddam Refuses Entry to Inspectors.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=38213

there you go.

All I could find is this
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/28/spr...kay/index.html
Yeah, so who to blame now. And he is a weapon inspector.

Kay said that while it was "theoretically possible" large stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons could be found in Iraq, the prospect was "highly unlikely."

So we went to war because it could be highly unlikely, but Iraq might have weapons theoretically.

how about this..

"The Iraqis admitted they had made 3.9 tons of VX," a powerful nerve gas, but claimed they had never weaponized it. The U.N. inspectors "felt they had more. But where did it go?" The Iraqis never provided any explanation of what had happened to their VX stockpiles.

A quote from the sourse i noted.

And it doesnt even matter if they never weaponized it. Having VX was illegal for Iraq, as told by the UN, and therefore warrants an INVASION ANS DISSARMAMENT. We were PERFECTLY justified in our invasion. In fact, by UN doctrine, disarming Iraq was mandatory!!! They broke the rules!!! But, as we know, the UN never follows the rules it creates, but the US will. The UN is all talk, and no action. All they are good for is scaring dangerous people, while the US and England do the dirty work.

Again the weapon inspector said it was highly unlikely that Iraq had any weapons.

The U.N. inspectors "felt they had more. But where did it go

The UN inspector in charge didn't think they had any weapons, again read the link.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/28/spr...kay/index.html

And it doesnt even matter if they never weaponized it. Having VX was
illegal for Iraq, as told by the UN, and therefore warrants an INVASION ANS DISSARMAMENT. We were PERFECTLY justified in our invasion.

Again quote your sources about UN inspectors saying they had weapons. And were is the VX now, how can you disarm something that doesn't exsist?

They proberly didn't have it in the first place, or their was faulty intelligence, the person in charge of the weapons search even admitted their is faulty intelligence. And he said it was highly unlikely that Iraq had weapons.

Iraq is a desert the size of California. I suppose it is just impossible that Saddam dug a whole out there and burried the VX. That is just impossible.

Iraq is a desert the size of California. I suppose it is just impossible that Saddam dug a whole out there and burried the VX. That is just impossible.

You have to base your arguments on evidence not what is possible. Again if we list what is possible then were not looking at the facts, it possible that America destroyed the twin towers, it possible that jews rule the world, its possible that the holocaust didn't happen. I could carry on for ever, saying saddam dug a whole and burried the VX is not fact, however it opinnion. Can we stick to the facts here. As using your logic I could proberly argued that it was all the jews fault, because their thiefs. And isn't it possible that Iraq was invaded for it oil.

Originally Posted by wendylove

Yeah, but their nearly close to getting nuclear warheads.

eek, anyone here have a spare bedroom for me?

We need wars. How else would we regulate the world population... There be no room! Unless we design the antimatter warp thingies. Then we can warp around on spaceships.

Originally Posted by wendylove

Yes you should withdraw, and what else are the average people who didn't want to go to war go, shut up.

Iran has nuclear weapons, so I unless you want MAD to happen your country would not do it. A large amount of people in your country want to pull out, how do you think democrats got massive support during the bi elections.

What now it the, wendy your a liberal wackhoo, seriously.

This is not a good option, firstly Iran has nuclear warhead, secondly no one wants another Iraq however much they say 9/11.

Yeah, vote extremist parties, like Palistein hasmas was voted in. And look what happening to Palistein.

So let me get it, if a person gave a hundred pound or a gun to a robber and he then robbed then the person who gave the hundred pound to the robber should get beaten up.

This has nothing to do with 9/11. So just admit that 9/11 link or a 9/11 link of a link is bullshit?
Also your saying stuff that happen like ten years ago, and lots of country support Hamas and Hezballah. Israli is not any better and their has been worse dictatorship, look at africa.

1. Iran does not have nuclear weapons. Where in the world did you get that?
2. If Iran ever has nuclear weapons, they will be used to kill innocents for Jihad reasons.
3. Allies do sometimes turn into enemies, at which point it makes sense to take away the weapons you gave them. If you and your friend are taking on an intruder and you give him a gun, and then your friend turns on you and becomes a threat himself, you take away his gun.
4. Again, 9/11 inspired the Bush Doctrine, which concerend international terrorism in general. Nobody with more than three teeth is saying the Hussein regime was involved in 9/11.
5. The Iraqi consitution does not allow for dictatorship and such. It is much like our constitution.
6. We are taking on Hamas and Hezballah, but they are not governments and don't have such easy access to making their own WMD's. That is why going after governments is a higher priority.
7. We will do what we have to do, even if we have to have another ten Iraq type wars. You might not know how serious our situation is until New York city gets wiped out in a matter of minutes. This is serious business and not something to take with a grain of salt and dress up and play hippy with.
8. We are not in Iraq to destroy it. We are there to make it a much better country in the long run.
9. http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=4&gl=us
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/ir...ade/sect5.html
10. Calling Palestine a "democracy" is really stretching things.
11. You keep taking individual points and arguing against them as though I suggested they could each stand alone as justification for the war. It's what all of the issues add up to. Remember... the big picture.

1. Iran does not have nuclear weapons. Where in the world did you get that?

I said soon they would have nuclear weapons.

2. If Iran ever has nuclear weapons, they will be used to kill innocents for Jihad reasons.

Again this is assumption, based on what evidence? Iran does not want to enter a nuclear war only a cold war like stand off. Having Iran get blown up with nuclear weapons and Iran blowing Euroupe up with their future weapons is not in their best interest, in the account of them being dead.

5. The Iraqi consitution does not allow for dictatorship and such. It is much like our constitution.

Having a puppet government does the prove Iraqi is demoncratic. Again the real power in Iraq is with the Sunni's and Shia's.

6. We are taking on Hamas and Hezballah, but they are not governments and don't have such easy access to making their own WMD's. That is why going after governments is a higher priority.

You do agree that Hamas owns half of Palistein they do control it. So I guess the fight against Hamas, Hamas are winning. Hezballah itself is doing okay. Again they don't want to attack america, that is not realistic all they want is stuff like rockets and anti aircraft missles and guns so they can keep Palistein and hurt Israel.

7. We will do what we have to do, even if we have to have another ten Iraq type wars. You might not know how serious our situation is until New York city gets wiped out in a matter of minutes. This is serious business and not something to take with a grain of salt and dress up and play hippy with.

So what country your saying will turn New yourk city into dust. Iran would not do it, I haven't heard of terriorism having nuclear weapons.

9. http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache...k&cd= 4&gl=us
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/ir...ade/sect5.html

Again it makes more sense to destroy the terrorist, not Iraq who was just funding the terrorist. Why is fighting Iraq better then fighting the terrorist?

10. Calling Palestine a "democracy" is really stretching things.

Hamas was elected fair and square. Again you can't pick and choose democracy and Hamas won the election.

11. You keep taking individual points and arguing against them as though I suggested they could each stand alone as justification for the war. It's what all of the issues add up to. Remember... the big picture.

I can you explain the big picture. Say if I had a bike and all the indiviual part were really poor, would that make the big picture of the bike any better?

Originally Posted by wendylove

Hamas was elected fair and square. Again you can't pick and choose democracy and Hamas won the election.

1) So what, the Nazi's were also elected fair and square. Democracy means nothing if after you are elected you act undemocratically.
2) Hamas did a military coup in Gaza against Palestinian law, and they refuse to dismantle their military militia in spite of it being against the Palestinian law.

1) So what, the Nazi's were also elected fair and square. Democracy means nothing if after you are elected you act undemocratically.
2) Hamas did a military coup in Gaza against Palestinian law, and they refuse to dismantle their military militia in spite of it being against the Palestinian law.

The nazi being popular is more to do with the mistakes of the west like the treaty of versaille.
Hamas was never going to be excepted so it took up arms and fighted to get the land it won in the election. Hamas is popular with it people, so in democratic terms it represents its people.

Originally Posted by wendylove

The nazi being popular is more to do with the mistakes of the west like the treaty of versaille.
Hamas was never going to be excepted so it took up arms and fighted to get the land it won in the election. Hamas is popular with it people, so in democratic terms it represents its people.

No, Hamas didn't win "land" in the election. It won sits in parliament and government. but it was not enough for them, as they use democracy as an intermediate step to Islamic rule, so they took Gaza by force. I really see no difference between Hamas and the Nazi's, except that the former acts out of religious hatred, while the later acted out of nationalistic and racist hatred.

No, Hamas didn't win "land" in the election. It won sits in parliament and government. but it was not enough for them, as they use democracy as an intermediate step to Islamic rule, so they took Gaza by force. I really see no difference between Hamas and the Nazi's, except that the former acts out of religious hatred, while the later acted out of nationalistic and racist hatred.

Again they won the election, Hamas should have became president of palistein, however they didn't except that. The palistein government would never except Hamas.
Again Israel is not a victim in this, the lebanon war comes to mind? Also that one of the main reason Hamas and Hezballah came to power. As they helped thousands of people during the war and gave people loans so they can start up again. And what did Israel do, well killed thousands of people destroyed millions of people live, and did the rocket attacks stop? No they got worse.
Again if your life got destroyed in the lebanon war, you would proberly hate Israel.

Originally Posted by wendylove

The nazi being popular is more to do with the mistakes of the west like the treaty of versaille.
Hamas was never going to be excepted so it took up arms and fighted to get the land it won in the election. Hamas is popular with it people, so in democratic terms it represents its people.

George W. Bush was also elected fair and square, twice!!! You think he is evil, so I guess it is possible for evil people to get into power.

Originally Posted by wendylove

Again they won the election, Hamas should have became president of palistein, however they didn't except that. The palistein government would never except Hamas.
Again Israel is not a victim in this, the lebanon war comes to mind? Also that one of the main reason Hamas and Hezballah came to power. As they helped thousands of people during the war and gave people loans so they can start up again. And what did Israel do, well killed thousands of people destroyed millions of people live, and did the rocket attacks stop? No they got worse.
Again if your life got destroyed in the lebanon war, you would proberly hate Israel.

You should get your facts straight before you comment on this:
1) The election in which Hamas won was for the parliament, not for the presidency.
2) The Palestinian government not only excepted Hamas, but in fact it was Hamas: The prime minister and many presidents were from Hamas.
3) All the rest of your comments bear no relation to anything I said, I was simply correcting your view of the Hamas legitimacy in taking over Gaza in a military coup against Palestinian law.

You should get your facts straight before you comment on this:
1) The election in which Hamas won was for the parliament, not for the presidency.
2) The Palestinian government not only excepted Hamas, but in fact it was Hamas: The prime minister and many presidents were from Hamas.
3) All the rest of your comments bear no relation to anything I said, I was simply correcting your view of the Hamas legitimacy in taking over Gaza in a military coup against Palestinian law.

Okay forget about the rights of Hamas.
If the Iraq war was really about terrorism and groups like Hamas, which Iraq was funding. Why don't you send troops to palistein and fight their instead of Iraq? If you destroy the terrorist would it be better then destroying Iraq who funded the terrorist. Again why doesn't america just go straight for the terrorist instead of Iraq? it would make more sense.